At this stage/level of the discussion such “general” arguments are not enough. Please, elaborate - what exact premise you mean, why is it incorrect and provide the correct one.
You refuse to accept the idea of "information" and continually reject that as a meaningful issue. This is really tiresome.
Once again, it is malpractice and false teaching to claim that the purpose of dither is to help perception.
Dither retains more information than the lack thereof. It's that simple. Live with it.
As to this:
Exactly, adding randomness decreases information, not increases it.
It was shown, irrevocably and without any possible dispute whatsoever in any way, shape, or form, to be utterly, completely, and without any possible revocation, to be wrong, in the thread on dither.
Retract your false teaching and STOP IT. You sully the field with your misinformation.
As to your 'randomness' canard, which has more information content, a signal that has a flat spectrum, or a signal that has a heavily shaped spectrum?
Do tell, @Serge Smirnoff please.
Let us, take for instance, the utterly irrevocable disappearance of a sine wave in an undithered state when it sinks below +-.5 in a zero-centered quantizer. Let us also encode our information in the level of that sine wave. When the sine disappears, the information is gone forever.
In the case where somebody DOES IT RIGHT, ACCEPTS THE MATH, and adds dither before quantization, now the level is easily detected in a long FFT (for instance, there are better ways, but this isn't a signal detection class) and the information is preserved to infinitely more resolution.
(to explain, zero information without dither, so the information remaining, while impaired compared to the original, is a ratio of information preserved of finite number divided by zero, or infinitely better signal preservation.)
ENOUGH!!!!